Re: OO versus RDB

From: H. S. Lahman <h.lahman_at_verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:40:00 GMT
Message-ID: <QVbrg.5593$Ym2.5253_at_trndny05>

Responding to Parker...

>>Similarly, functional programming represents the best
>>approach I know of to algorithmic processing when requirements are
>>nonvolatile.

>
>
> I doubt if you can justify that statement. The classical matrix and
> integration algorithms, for example, are written in languages like
> FORTRAN, ALGOL, C and C++, and would be extremely difficult to port to
> functional languages, relying as they do on a sequence of mutations to
> data structures. If you do a search for work on functional languages
> and numerical algorithms, you won't find much, apart from experimental
> work.

Obviously porting would be a pain because of the data structures since most FPLs don't support state variables at all. Thus a port effectively ends up being a rewrite. However, I was talking about original development.

Typically an FPL program will be integer factors smaller than a corresponding program in traditional languages like C and FORTRAN. In addition, the FPL use of functions and composition leads to a very direct and intuitive representation of algorithmic functional decomposition hierarchies.

One of the software conferences (FTC?) has been running a programming contest for a decade or so. Each contestant chooses the language they will use. The problems are typically scientific in nature (though not always) and nontrivial. AFAIK, the category for fastest development of a correct program has been won by an FPL in every contest.

---

There is nothing wrong with me that could not be cured by a capful of Drano.

H. S. Lahman
hsl_at_pathfindermda.com
Pathfinder Solutions -- Put MDA to Work http://www.pathfindermda.com
blog: http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman Pathfinder is hiring:
http://www.pathfindermda.com/about_us/careers_pos3.php. (888)OOA-PATH Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 19:40:00 CEST